Appeal No. 1997-3524 Page 21
Application No. 08/336,402
containing fluid would have been effective for impregnation.
Moreover, while Paul may discuss the use of a differential
pressure at page 14 of the patent in the examples furnished, such
a differential pressure does not preclude the use of ambient
pressure at the impregnation surface. Nor is Pall limited to the
use of pumps for the impregnation as mentioned in some of the
examples. Indeed, the preamble to the sentence beginning at page
15, line 11 of Pall regarding the alternative of an arbitrary
force being applied during deposition reasonably suggests that
ambient pressure impregnation is contemplated by Pall.
In light of the above and for reasons as set forth in the
answer, we shall sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of method
claims 7, 14, 19 24 and 25 over Pall.
With respect to dependent claims 8-13, 15-18 and 20, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellants’ position with respect to
the examiner’s § 103 rejection. This is so with respect to claim
8 and the claims which depend therefrom since claim 8 requires
solidifying the treatment liquid that contains the fine particles
which the examiner has not established to be fairly suggested by
Pall’s vaporization of the solvents or curing of any binder
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007